Readers' comments

As a Colonial heritage,Rohingya Bengalis have the right to Live in the UK,UK should accept these refugees.Of course,if ASEAN's Muslim countries such as Indonesia can accept their Muslim's brothers,it also is a good thing.

The king of Arakan (Rakhine) Bosawpyu occupied a part of Bengal in 1459. Chittagong district of now Bangladesh went under the rule of Arakanese for a century until Moguls Empire repelled them in 1666. Over the centuries peasants of Chittagong settled in Arakan as tenants of the King solely for living on agriculture. Those Bengali speaking Muslims are now branded as Rohynga. Those people and their posterity born in the Burmese soil are universally Burmese/Myanmar’s citizens to this day. Burmese authority may deny citizenship of those who entered after independence on 4 Jan 1948, but, cannot deny natural human right. As being the pro-democracy leader, Nobel laureate Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi would raise her voice for peace and domestic tranquility by protecting universal human rights of the people of Myanmar regardless of any ethnicity, sect, caste or creed. It is imperative to change the inhuman racist’s mantle. Escalation of racial rioting may aid the Burmese administration back to military. Political transition and democratization would hardly possible.

There are a number of ethnic peoples with unknown origins and many others have origin stories that involve relatively recent migrations. Even the Bamar themselves allegedly came from Yunnan province (as did Tai peoples, the Kachin, and many others). Does this make them outsiders? Should everyone who can’t trace a bloodline to Bagan leave or register as a “resident alien”? Do Anglo-Burmese or Indo-Burmese have to leave? Are those refugees born outside of the country not allowed to become citizens? Do other ethnicities who transcend international borders (Naga, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Karenni, Karen, Mon, etc) find themselves suspect? Do migrant workers of even Bamar descent find themselves suspect?

It has been quite clear to the civilized world that the Myanmars Buddhists(including the furious Rakhines) are one of the worst brutal people around the world and rather far from understanding citizenship and humanity even if the Rohingya Muslims have been residing in Arakan before the independence of Myanmar.But the most surprising point is that so called democratic leader Aung Sung Sukhi is bypassing the problem rigorously.I have been pretty speechless that how come she is a Novel laureate in peace.What a shame to Sukhi!

Win Hliang Tun
Mingalaba. It is not for us Westerners to tell you how to run your country; but may I humbly suggest that you face a simple choice. If this, and other similar problems, can be solved peacefully then Western funds will flow into Burma, the people will become steadily more prosperous, and democracy is more likely to become established. In time, the youth of Yangon will be sitting in fashionable coffee-shops tweeting each other about the evils of neo-liberal capitalism.

If, on the other hand, the people choose violence, then investors will be deterred and your country will remain poor. There will be a risk, as the article suggests, that reactionary elements will seize power and the reforms will end. The only winners will be a few unscrupulous businesspeople from your northern neighbour.

Actually the interests of the "northern neigbour" go beyond exploiting natural resources (gas, oil, electricity, mining, timber, ...). Burma is important to China for geo-strategic reasons and for that same reason the US needs Burma as a "partial pivot" in Asia. The average Burmese citizen doesn't understand the bigger picture.
I predict that "in time" Chinese kids will be sitting in fashionable coffee shops in Rangoon tweeting about TOEFL scores needed to enter Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. or perhaps about how to hedge their long positions using some VIX's, I don't know! LOL

You know what's funny? There wouldn't be a single Chinese poster here if tocharian hadn't obsessively trolled his repetitive hate speech against the Chinese here and on many other sites over the past ~5 years.

He also trolls against the Thais (which he think is ruled by the "ethnically Chinese") and the Indians occasionally.

Good job tocharian? Let's make all of Burma's neighbors Burma's enemies!

guest-islaeni; I would be shocked if I were giving succour to trolling promoters of hate speech. I have checked tocharian's recent posts and can find nothing which could reasonably be so described. His/her comments are sometimes more combative than I favour but that's called free (and fair) speech.

Perhaps you could show me an example of what you consider hate-speech?

These two posts were just a few examples I found browsing through the past 3 pages of his post history. He has ~50 pages of posts on The Economist alone filled with mostly of this stuff.

To sum it up, tocharian believes that:

Tocharian believes that:

1. Quote "there are too many Chinese people in the West."

2. Quote "all ethnically Chinese people (yes, including Taiwan, Singapore, overseas, etc etc) and partially Chinese people (1/2 Chinese, 1/4 Chinese, 1/8 Chinese, and etc) people think collectively as one in order to support the CPC."

3. Quote "all ethnically Chinese people are partially Chinese people are in an undeclared war with the USA and want to destroy the West."

If you don't think this is racist propaganda (hate speech), then I don't know what is.

Tocharian cann't and won't repeat hate speech against ethnic
Indian in myanmar because Tocharian is a hybrid Burmese(Burmese and Indian).He only will belittle any minorities except Burmese and ethnic Indians.In fact,I want to know
how our Tocharian will response,One day,when Burmese treated ethnic Indians as Bengali(Rohingya). Does Burmese puts ethnic Indian on higher rank than Bengali(Rohingya)? Both enter into Burmese zone,not Karen or Kachin zones,during British colonial days.

According to the omniscient Wikipedia, hate speech is an utterance which constitutes a criminal offence by virtue of the likelihood that it will incite violence against an individual or group. Unpleasant though I find some of tocharian's comments, they do not fulfil these conditions.

I hope you will forgive my pedantry in pointing out that the quotes you offer in your post are not tocharian's actual words in the links you included.

An example of something which I think could constitute hate speech is the following from Chocolate-Chip Cookie:

'The world should united to destroy racist Burmese terrorists!' It seems clear from context that the writer intends this to apply to all ethnic Burmans.

Actually writing propaganda in order to try to alienate and demonize one group of people is considered hate speech, at least in accordance to American law in most states. Many of tocharian's posts would be considered hate speech in the US.
.
By the way, why do you think CCC's posts concerning Burmese terrorists applies to all ethnic Burmans? Is it because there are too many terrorists in Burma so that the word "terrorist" is synonymous with "Burmese"?

We can of course debate just where the line is drawn. I'm inclined to the harm principle, JS Mill and all that.

With regard to CCC's comment, in the context of the post he appeared to be referring to all Burmans.

For myself, a lifetime spent working in countries and cultures not my own has convinced me that the kind of racism we see expressed in this thread, and virulently across the Internet, is best dealt with by logical argument rather than legal constraint.

For millennia, the Bamar have viewed the Burmese ethnic minority as populated by barbarians and it is a mark of Bamar history to “civilize”, “pacify” and “Bamarize” them (bring them under Bamar cultural, economic and genetic control).
Karen, Kachin and Shan were independent kingdoms until “recently” by historical standards. Of course, the Bamar are aware of ethnic minorities, but they will use these “quaint people” as cheap labor who can be pushed around and treated like slaves.
Bamar society is convinced of their cultural superiority (remember the pretentious Bamar Buddhist Propaganda Institutes) and they have long-term economic goals (Chinese RMB bonds), so they are hungry for natural resources (e.g. gas and oil). The goal is to make Burma Bamar dominant, and to make the Bamar race a dominance race in Southeast Asia. The process will continue for the next 1000 years and the Bamar are not afraid to roll over other races, especially Burmese ethnic minorities, as seen in Burma today, to accomplish their goals.

The problem is that many people (cough cough tocharian) are severely logically deficient and will choose to stay irrational and delusional racists if it pleases them to do so. (Some kid of masochist pleasure I think.)

"Rohinja (Bangali) rioters burnt their homes themselves in Sittway and have planned to flee after the incidents," I have no idea why they had to do so and feel so upset. I am wondering why the world's famous medias are more concerned with Rohingya than other ethnic minorities. In Rakhine State of Myanmar, Rohingya Bengalis are not minority in that area after second world war and it is now (at least or over) half of population in Rakhine State.
They demanded Myanmar territory before declaration of Independence but fortunately lost. And then, they created the term "Rohingya," calling for the "Rohingya State." There has never been such an ethnic group (illegal immigrants) in Myanmar history. Rohingya is not one of the ethnic groups of Myanmar at all. These riots happened because of the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh called “Rohingya” and mischievous provocation of some international communities. Genetically, culturally and linguistically Rohingya is not absolutely related to any ethnicity in Myanmar. But, if we were forcefully pressured to accept Rohingya as one of the ethnic groups (of Burma), we won’t tolerate that. We Myanmar must have to protect each other in a collective and united way.

So if Rohingyas are "genetically, culturally and linguistically not absolutely related to any ethnicity in Myanmar", what about the Chinese? Are they OK? I'm sure there are lots of Chinese immigrants in Burma (legal or illegal, I don't know). Just asking!

The lady,Miss Aung San Suu Kyi,should return home by cutting short of her European tour immediately to address the situation now prevailing in the Rakhine State of Burma.It is beyond imagination how a leader like Miss Kyi could leave her homeland leaving it engulfed in ethnic violence?It will also baffle people why she has preferred to maintain silence so long in this respect.The Rakhine State is now on fire and a group of religious minorities are trying to flee their homeland by over crowded small river crafts in search of safety in a neighboring country only to be denied entry for obvious reasons.Will the lady listen?

In many Western countries Aung San Suu Kyi is not just a “Burmese idol”. She is an icon and a champion for universal human rights issues all across the globe (just ask Bono from U2!). Most people in Burma, I believe, still have a fundamental misunderstanding about how the West views human rights. Discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, gender etc. is a definite no no! Citizenship and immigration laws cannot subject to "which ethnicity looks more indigenous to Burma" type of rules, not to mention bribery.
Having said that, everyone knows Burma’s borders are extremely porous (not just in the West, even more so in the North and East) with all those “ethnic armies” fighting for “autonomy” and their “human rights”(sic). The central government never really controlled these areas, since Burma’s independence in 1947. Smuggling and trafficking (of all kinds) is rampant. Even Burmese ID’s can easily be bought and sold, if you have enough cash, by bribing the corrupt soldiers, police, immigration and customs officials. Given this situation how can the government impose strict control of “citizenship” in the country? If people in Burma really want to be protected by the central government under the “rule of law” and want to control the flow of "refugees and illegal immigration" (Rohingyas or Karen or Kachin or Chinese or whatever), they have to eradicate corruption, support a strong central government and reform it democratically (one can rewrite the constitution to make it more a federal union, for example) but most importantly these “smuggler war-lords” (of all kinds, including the corrupt Burmese army officers) in all the border regions have to be disbanded. Otherwise there will be no peace in Burma and without peace one can forget about “Freedom from Fear”!
Incidentally, it is good for the West (including Bono!) not to be too naive about judging complicated problems in other countries. It's not as simple as "cowboys" against "indians" type of thing. Just look at what's going on in Egypt right now!

For millennia, the Bamar have viewed the Burmese ethnic minority as populated by barbarians and it is a mark of Bamar history to “civilize”, “pacify” and “Bamarize” them (bring them under Bamar cultural, economic and genetic control).
Karen, Kachin and Shan were independent kingdoms until “recently” by historical standards. Of course, the Bamar are aware of ethnic minorities, but they will use these “quaint people” as cheap labor who can be pushed around and treated like slaves.
Bamar society is convinced of their cultural superiority (remember the pretentious Bamar Buddhist Propaganda Institutes) and they have long-term economic goals (Chinese RMB bonds), so they are hungry for natural resources (e.g. gas and oil). The goal is to make Burma Bamar dominant, and to make the Bamar race a dominance race in Southeast Asia. The process will continue for the next 1000 years and the Bamar are not afraid to roll over other races, especially Burmese ethnic minorities, as seen in Burma today, to accomplish their goals.

Judging by the comments on the other article concerning this issue, it seems like most Burmese, led by the Bamar, do not consider Rohingya "Burmese" because "race is race and blood is blood." According to the Bamar, one can only be Burmese if they are genetically "Burmese" (whatever that is, since most ethnic groups are immigrants to the region).

This level of racial ethnocentrism and discrimination toward recent (by recent I mean over the past 100 years) immigrants has not been seen since Hitler. Maybe we will see Rohingya forced deportation, concentration camps and death camps popping up in the near future?

The Burmese, led by the Bamars, despite their Buddhist facade (or should I say, FAKEcade?), have shown zero problems with violence, as seen in their own ethnic and religions minorities and their numerous terrorist attacks against Thailand. This makes them not only racists, but also racist terrorists, which makes them especially dangerous.

Judging by the comments on this forum, even the Burmese immigrants who hold passports in liberal Western countries (like Canada) seem to hold supreme loyalty to their own race or group of very similar races.

They put pressure on Western governments and attacking Western journalists (like Banyan who wrote this article) in order to try to prevent the world from doing anything to stop their ethnic violence against the minorities. If these Burmese immigrants are allowed to spread their evil racist violent ideology in the West, then the consequences will be dire.

"Maybe we will see Rohingya forced deportation, concentration camps and death camps popping up in the near future?"

You must be a Muslim. If so, can you tell me why Muslim are unable to get along with any other groups whether they're in Thailand, now Burma, India, Egypt, Nigeria, the Balkans... The list goes on and on. Also why is it that they can't get along with other Muslim sects as we see in Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan between Sunnis and Shia?

So your justification of violence against the Muslims is that there are Muslim-Muslim ethnic violence in other parts of the world, so it's totally OK for the Buddhist Burmese to commit forced deportation and genocide against the Muslim Burmese.

Didn't they teach you religious tolerance in those Canadian schools? It seems like that Burmese immigrants to Canada also believe in religious discrimination and violence. I guess Canada needs to tighten its immigration policies.

I see that education in madrasah doesn't focus on reading comprehension and critical thinking. I don't know what's going on in Burma. I'm not familiar with the region. I'm only familiar with Islam and how it has bloody borders throughout the world. This is a fact!

You post reads of a one-sided biased view laying the blame only on one single group, while painting the other as saints. This is not being objective, this is Taqiyya - lying for the cause of Islam. Do you think Jihad doctrine in Islam plays a role in this situation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOkXN0E5Ch4

From AP: "While government media had made some effort to not directly blame either side for the violence — describing rioters as 'terrorists' — other press coverage and news spread over the Internet gave a strong impression that the Rohingya community was mostly the aggressor."

Lets look at the numbers, shall we:

"Officials told reporters that 13 ethnic Rakhines and 16 Rohingya Muslims were killed in clashes from last Friday through Wednesday, while the injured included 16 Rakhine and 22 Rohingya."

Lets look at personal property:

"They also said 31,884 displaced people are being sheltered at monasteries and schools. Of 2,528 houses that were burned down, 1,192 belonged to Rakhines and 1,336 belonged to Rohingyas."

Now lets look at religious property:

"Nine Buddhist monasteries and seven mosques were also burned..."

Wow! The only time the numbers are higher is with religious property. Interesting! Now remember that Rohingyas are minority. Imagine how the situation would be if they were majority. BTW I'm neither Canadian nor Burmese.

"You have two posts on The Economist, and both are racist hate posts directed at the Muslims in Burma."

Nonsense! What you just did is called argumentum ad hominem. It is a logical fallacy. You fail to address any of the issues I've raised and instead resorted to name calling.

Since you seem to be suffering from a chronic case of amnesia, allow me reiterate myself. 1) Your initial post is bias against one group while dismissing actions of another. I tried to refute that by pointing out other conflicts where Islam and Muslims are involved. It was about Islam having bloody borders. No where does it say anything "racist" against Muslims in Burma. 2) You then ignore everything I posted and started name calling. I provided sources on possibility of the role religion plays, i.e. Jihad and stated AP article that lay blame on BOTH sides. You completely ignored that as well.

The truth is that you're unable to conceive of the possibility that Muslims might not be the only victims after all. Years of religious indoctrination has effectively remove any traces of critical thought. As an atheist I believe all religions are poison, and Islam in particular has been a curse on mankind.

BTW what is a "Bamar"? Does it mean Jew in Bengali? hahaha! I get accused of being a Jew a lot, so this is nothing new.

Firstly, you have to know that this is geopolitical issues that Burmese government didn't handle since long long time ago. Then you will able to understand that this is not deal with religion or racist stuff, frankly. Burma have had their own problems since many many decades. So, Burmese don't accept any outsider (including Bengali Rohingya). This recent attacks made by Rohingya is not deal with discrimination as well but it is damaging sovereignty of Burma as Rohingya is still foreigner.
It is common sense that those Rohingya are illegal immigrant from neighboring dirt-poor country if you understand how geopolitics and demographic simply work. Burma do not have any policy that will accept anyone who residing in the country just about decades or a century or so on cos Burma is NOT western liberal country.
So, stop saying about human rights or whatever stuff in undeveloped nation like Burma.
Burmese have their own policy to make their nation stand still in history but they can respect others as long as those others don't want to become Burmese and don't want to steal the Burmese land.
If you think Burmese are stupid about their nationality - nationalism, pls look at German, Janpanese, first.
So, Burmese are much more smarter than you(The Racist Bamars). Don't try to play with little knowledge.

God I hate it when people cry logical fallacies when they don't know what logical fallacies actually are.

You claimed that you were not Burmese. The other poster claimed that you probably are Burmese by giving evidence of your post history.

How is this an ad hominem argument? This is logically equivalent a fat person claiming that he isn't fat and another person posting a picture of the fat person to prove him wrong. Just because it has an "ad hominem" component to it doesn't make it an ad hominem argument.

Maybe you should brush up on what ad hominem arguments actually are before claiming it.

Are you American Burmese by any chance? Americans love to cry ad hominem without actually knowing what ad homienms are.

You have a bias toward Muslims, and yet you accuse Racist Bumar of being Muslims. He is a troll who hates Burmese, ever thought about that. Not all Muslims are the aggressors. What about the Balkans? Many Muslims were slaughtered. The funny thing is where were the calls for Jihad when this was happening?

The Thais have gotten away with murder for what they are doing Southern Thailand. They are arming Buddhist civilians, forming vigilante groups, yet silence from the Western press. At the same time the Indonesian government in Papua is getting flack, for a situation that has much less intense than the one in Southern Thailand. The Papuan guerrilla have attacked civilians in Papua, just like Muslims do in Thailand. As long as you provide blow jobs for the West, you can let things slide.

Alot of the Islamic radicalism you see in the last 30-40 years, has alot to do with the Cold War and the discovery of Oil in Saudi Arabia, and not with Islam itself. Most radical Sunni Islamic groups can be traced 30-40 years. You can read the Quran for tips, but its not going to get you anywhere. I can pull out the Bible, and do the same thing. Why have women in places like Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia started wearing the Hijab in the last 30-40 years? Its the influence of Saudi Arabia, its funding of Wahhabi madrasah. Al Qaeda has its roots in the Afghan War vs the Soviets. Hamas in the early 1970 as a Israel response to counter Arab nationalism in the West Bank. Shin Bet funneled money into these groups and armed them.

Wahhabi Islam is a temporary fad, at least in Asia. The dominance of India and China in the next fifty years (both secular and non-monotheistic states) you will being to see more orthodox strains of Islam retreat eventually.

Well lets have a look, "argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

To simply put, it is attacking the person and not the argument, in an attempt to discredit the "truth of a claim." The poster's incredibly bias post lays blame only to one side, to which I provided example of Islam's bloody borders (other conflicts), I provided video of someone discussing Jihad in Islam, and finally cited AP article that shows both sides are involved in violence.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Wahhabi madrasahs pretty much transformed the Islamic world. I've read about CIA supporting Afghan Mujihadeen which included young Bin Ladin and I've also read about Israeli role. And I hope one day the Wahhabi influence will one day recede back in the borders of Saudi Arabia.

No he accused you of lying about your race, and did not attempt to refute your claims about Muslims whatsoever.

Go read what an ad homienm argument is again. An ad hominem argument only exists when a person tries to negate the truth of a claim BY pointing out a negative characteristic. If he never tried to negate the truth of your claim about Muslims, then obviously an ad hominem argument cannot occur.

The irony is the West demonizes Iran, but its strain of Islam has done far less damage to the West, than Sunni's have. In Saudi Arabia there is little left of its pre-Islamic heritage. But in Iran, they still celebrate the Persian New Year in a real big way, something that few non-Arab Muslim countries do really. Even the Javanese, among the Arabized of Muslims, they don't make a big deal out of Javanese New Year. Another interesting thing is many Iranians still have Persian names. few Indian Muslims keep their Sanskrit names.

The problem with Islam has less to do with Arabian Culture or scripture, but with organization. Sunni Islam is very disorganized. Any fruitcake preacher can issue a fatwa. In Shite Islam only the Supreme Leader can issue a Fatwa, and they rarely issue them.

The funny thing, given that you are Indian, if you were in that area during the riots they would lynch you for being Indian, it does not matter if you are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or believe in the Twinkie God. You look Indian, they go after you. Two of the most violent Muslim insurgencies in South East Asia, Southern Thailand and Southern Philippines has less to do with Islam, more to do with borders drawn up by Europeans arbitrarily.

In your link they talk about the burning of Nanlanda. But Nanlanda started centuries before. Secondly, if you look at the reliefs in Nanlanda, you will see very anti-Hindu images. Like Shiva and others Hindu Gods carrying the sedan chair for Buddha. It would have eventually disappeared even if there was not invasion.

"Burma do not have any policy that will accept anyone who residing in the country just about decades or a century or so on cos Burma is NOT western liberal country."......."So, Burmese are much more smarter than you(The Racist Bamars). Don't try to play with little knowledge."

It seems Burma is in the other planet! A real evil design! Democratization and modern civilization likely once in a blue moon.

The only problem I have with your claim about Southern Thailand is this:

On 1 February, a Thahan Phran, Thanong Sinthu, was shot in Pattani Province.

On 3 February, an illegal oil trader was shot in Bacho District, Narathiwat Province. In a separate incident in Pattani Province a woman was killed and her husband and son were injured. Deep South Watch announced 33 dead and 55 injured in January as a result of clashes in south Thailand, with no insurgent casualties.

On 5 March, a blast at a market in the Tak Bai District wounded 8.

On 7 March, 4 soldiers and a rubber tapper were killed in two separate attacks in Narathiwat and Pattani Provinces.[176] Two days later at least 50 militants attacked an army base in Yala Province, shooting electricity poles down to block escape routes, kidnapping 2 soldiers and injuring 12 more. The missing officers were later discovered shot to death with their hands bound and their weapons gone.

On 10 March, a local politician was shot dead with a M-16 assault rifle and 9mm pistol in Pattani's Ka Por District by a group of four or five assailants in a sedan.

On 15 March, a motorcycle bomb exploded in Pattani, killing one villager and wounding three others including two soldiers.

On 17 March, one school girl was killed and four others injured, two critically, in a roadside bomb attack apparently intended for soldiers in Pattani

On 19 March, a member of a village security team was shot dead in Pattani's Yaring District

>>>On 21 March, Thai army has accepted responsibility for killing four innocent civilians in the insurgency-plagued south two months ago<<<

On 25 March, an assistant village head in Narathiwat and a defence volunteer in Pattani were killed in drive-by shooting's.[189] At night, a policeman was shot dead by militant's in Pattani's Yarang District

On 29 March, a security guard was killed in a drive-by shooting's in Pattani’s Muang District

On 31 March, four bombs exploded in Yala shopping districts and the parking lot of a hotel in Hat Yai, killing 16 and injuring more than 300 others

All I am going to say is I am not Muslim. The Thais are getting away with brutality Have the insurgents bombed Bangkok like the IRA did with London? They haven't. Their aims and means are limited, merely to push the ethnic Thai Buddhist settlers out of Southern Thailand.

You are doing a very dangerous thing by conflicting everything as religious. The conflict in southern Thailand has its roots in the Anglo-Siam Treaty of 1909. They cut the Malay sultanate into two. The reason is because they are Malay. Why aren't the ethnic Thai Muslims protesting (there are 1 million ethnic Thai Muslims in Thailand).

Ethnic Thai Muslims are like the ethnic Hui in China (who are Chinese speaking Muslims), the Chinese have no problem with the Hui. Really the Hui are Han Chinese who converted. The Rohingya, are like Malay Muslims in Thailand, Uighurs in China. Race and language play a bigger role. Once you start turning it into a religious thing, it becomes all messed up.

When the Han Chinese were attacked by Tibetans, people criticized China. Everyone was sympathetic to the Tibetans. over 100 Han Chinese were killed. Tibetans have got alot more autonomy from CPC than the Malays in Southern Thailand. Thailand is given a free pass, because they screw the West literally.

What starts off primarily as a nationalist / ethnic movement, becomes religious when the authorities start trying to justify their actions by calling them Islamic terrorist. The Chinese government uses it to describe the Uighur, the Thais do the same thing. Stupid people and people asking for a fight, like you do that.

"All I am going to say is I am not Muslim. The Thais are getting away with brutality Have the insurgents bombed Bangkok like the IRA did with London?"

Strawman! We don't need to see Bangkok bombed to realize they're beheading of monks or blowing up school children in the south. People are dying and it doesn't make a difference where they die.

I understand the difference between Hui Muslims and Uighurs in China. What I don't understand is that if historical and territorial disputes result in suicide bombs and terror, why don't we see Greeks marching to Istanbul aka Constantinople to reclaim Hagia Sophia, one of Christendom's holiest sites?

BTW, the reason why Iranians have a different brand of Islam and keep their Persian roots is actually the main reason why there's a split between Shia and Sunni. I'll leave you with the name Hussein ibn Ali who was beheaded by Arab Muslims at the battle of Karbala. This battle effectively removed the Persian yoke.

My name is Ibn Lahab, "Son of Lahab" and if you've studied Islam you'd know who Abu Lahab was. Cheers!

This editorial is inconsistent with what Suu Kyi proclaimed to the ILO in Geneva today when she called for increased, but responsible investment, especially to create jobs. Suu Kyi learnt from her experience in Bangkok that soundbytes like "reckless optimism" can be counterproductive, and she has already said that her message on that occasion has been misunderstood. Suu Kyi is on a sharp learning curve as she moves from democracy icon to stateswoman. She is well on the way already.

Yes,Suu Kyi also did stated in Bangkok that "we do not want investment to mean greater corruption. We do not want investment to mean greater privileges for the already privileged." She stood a defendant point for Burmese people.

I guess world medias just intentionally pick up the words which would create greater tension between Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein.